Anna F. Litvina / Fedor B. Uspenskij: Traektorii tradicii. Glavy iz istorii dinastii i cerkvi na Rusi konca XI – načala XIII veka. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury, 2010. 207 S. ISBN: 978-5-9551-0397-6

Anna F. Litvina / Fedor B. Uspenskij: Traektorii tradicii. Glavy iz istorii dinastii i cerkvi na Rusi konca XI – načala XIII veka. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury, 2010. 207 S. ISBN: 978-5-9551-0397-6.

The study of medieval Rus’, especially in the context of a larger world, has blossomed in recent years, and the authors of this volume are a major part of that trend. “Traektorii Traditsii“, their second book in five years, brings together fascinating elements of ecclesiastical history, chronicle studies, and onomastics to paint a new and more complex picture of twelfth-century Rus’, a time they regard as one of “flowering and development, and not decline and impoverishment.” (p. 5)

The authors characterize this book as “fragments of a mosaic” (p. 6), and when combined with the subtitle of the book, this accurately depicts the contents. The five chapters of this book each center around an interesting item in the chronicles that the authors have found and are examining here in more depth. The bulk of the book, 115 of 161 pages, is just two of the chapters, both dealing with elements of the ecclesiastical / political dispute between metropolitans Klim Smoliatich and Konstantin in the mid-twelfth century, while the other three deal with various topics from the end of the eleventh through the early thirteenth centuries. These five chapters are unified by two elements, the first of which is that these are ‘interesting’ or ‘curious’ things that deserve explanation and discussion; while the second is that they all relate in some fashion to Rus’ian culture.

Beginning with the first unifying principle, the authors are absolutely correct when they identify these items as fascinating. Litvina and Uspenskii, whose knowledge of the Rus’ian chronicles, as well as the historiography on Rus’ in a variety of languages, is unparalleled (even if one challenges their interpretations), have identified several questions that bear both specific investigation as well as have some larger ramifications. The first chapter, reminiscent of the work of A. V. Nazarenko (often cited) and Martin Dimnik (rarely cited), discusses a possible relationship between the monastery of St. Simeon in Kiev, the Sviatoslavichi, and Burkhard of Trier in the second half of the eleventh century. This relationship broadens our understanding of relations between Rus’ and the German Empire, as well as the ecclesiastical relationship between the two, throwing more doubt on the early ramifications of the schism of 1054. That is, if you accept the authors’ conjectures. I am inclined to do so taking to heart Simon Franklin’s dictum that all of Rus’ian history contains an “implicit perhaps”, but many will not be as reassured by the conjectural edifice erected by the authors’ theories and tantalizing possibilities. Chapter four examines the fascinating occurrence of the deaths of two generations of Sviatoslavichi occurring on August 1 (according to the Hypatian Chronicle) with a representative of the third generation, Sviatoslav Vsevolodich, referencing that fact on his deathbed and attempting to make that day for himself to die. The authors’ analysis of the chronicles’ interpretations adds to our understanding of the differences in the chronicles’ narrative construction and use of historical ‘fact’ to tell a story. (p. 151) However, even here, there are leaps that might cause some readers to falter, such as the theory – aiming to reconcile problems with the chronicle dates – which revolves around the interpretation of the phrase, “въ оутрии”, in the text of the Novgorod First Chronicle. (pp. 148–149) Chapter five digs into sigillography and the image of Christ Pantocrator on a seal which probably belonged to Iaroslav-Feodor Vsevolodich. The intricate discussion of names and naming traditions (both Slavic and Christian) is clearly a forte, and brings out important issues in regard to both the relationship of Slavic and Christian names, but also women’s names and how both change over this period. The conclusion linking Pantocrator, vsederzhitel’, with the personal name Vsevolod is ambitious but convincing. (pp. 162–163)

The two remaining chapters make up the bulk of the work and are concerned with Klim Smoliatich (ch. 2) and Konstantin (ch. 3), and could have been a book of their own with only slightly more material, and absent the other three chapters. Chapter two is, as its title suggests, “Brushstrokes on the Portrait of Kliment Smoliatich”, comprising bits about his name and its onomastic tradition in Rus’ from both Pope St. Clement and Kliment of Ohrid; to elements of his ecclesiastical policy making, or at least of the “Voproshaniia Kirika”; and the place of Klim in a larger ecclesiastical and intellectual context, specifically “Greek cultural traditions”. (p. 56) The concluding questions are about the relationship between Christianizer and Christianized, which definitely needs more study and could be explicated more here, and the relationship between Klim Smoliatich and the legacy of Kliment of Ohrid, which the authors cover very well given the limited sources. Chapter three then brings in Klim’s opponent, Metropolitan Konstantin, whose death and desire to have his body left to the animals is the main focus. Litvina and Uspenskii display their erudition and exhaustive knowledge of Christian history as they track this custom from the desert fathers to a host of eastern and western Christian saints and martyrs who have discussed or participated in this tradition. One of their most fascinating questions involves the audience of Konstantin’s act (p. 128), where they raise the possibilities that it was intended to be viewed as part of placing Rus’ in Christian history (p. 86, and as the authors suggest as motive for actions in other chapters), but also as a statement to others, Klim in particular, about Konstantin and sanctity. In the tradition of this book, the authors suggest possibilities and leave the topic open for further discussion, perhaps rightly so.

Litvina and Uspenskii have assembled a series of fascinating items to which they have applied their extensive knowledge of Rus’ian sources and historiography. The one general critique is relevant to their second element of unification of these chapters, and that is the use of “culture”. This term is used as a way to create a unified idea of what the book is about, but the actual idea of culture itself is never discussed. Culture is not unitary, even for a particular time and place, nor does it have only one meaning when discussed in modern scholarly work. Culture is a living, breathing, changing phenomenon that needs some level of definition to be studied, or used as a historical marker, and this is something that is never provided. That said, the authors do not actually need to provide one, because they do not need culture to create the framework for this book. They have assembled a series of fascinating and curious fragments of the mosaic of twelfth century Rus’, and the investigation of those largely stands on its own. Moreover, even though they are fragments, they add substantively to our understanding of a period of Rus’ian history that is often written off as one of decline.

Christian Raffensperger, Springfield, OH